High Stakes Causing Teacher Enrollments Crisis

A crisis has been brewing in education since 2008. Teacher-preparation programs have been seeing declining numbers of enrollments, and declining number of graduates, all at a time when record number of experienced teachers are leaving the profession either through retirement or seeking second careers. 

The national problem shown in the chart above is also being replicated here in Ohio. According to Federal title 2 data, in the 2011-2012 academic year, 6768 individuals completed teacher preparation programs at one of 51 Ohio institutions. In the 2015 report, just 6066 individuals completed teacher preparation programs.

Even the Dispatch has noticed

The number of newly awarded bachelor’s degrees in education has dropped by more than one-fourth in Ohio since the 2003-04 school year, challenging the state’s reputation as a fount of new teachers.

Given the historical surplus, that might be OK, except that the prospective new teachers aren’t seeking degrees in the specialties in which they’re needed most. That leaves school districts scrambling for teachers each year, especially in middle and high school math and science, plus foreign languages, physical education and other areas.

In 2003-04, Ohio’s public and private, nonprofit colleges and universities awarded 55,207 bachelor’s degrees, and 6,759 of them, or 12.2 percent, were in education. By 2014-15, the number of bachelor’s degrees had risen to 69,592, but only 4,983 were in education, shrinking the share of education degrees to 7.3 percent.

It is no surprise that enrollments and hence graduations are down. For a while corporate education reformers could blame the great recession, but now, years after recovery, the problem continues to deteriorate. Corporate reformers have created a less attractive work environment that is clearly unable to recruit enough high quality individuals. 

Nobody went in to education to suffer the joys of high-stakes anything. That much should now be obvious to everyone. What good does having high stakes do, when it drives away the very educators who are desperately needed to do the work?

Olmsted Falls Superintendent to ODE “We Will Not Waste Our Teachers’ Time”

Another letter to ODE from a Superintendent expressing concern with the report card based on unreliable test results

Via

In a recent letter to the leaders of the Ohio Department of Education and the president of the State Board of Education, Olmsted Falls City Schools Superintendent Jim Lloyd wrote that his school system will be taking full advantage of “safe harbor” enabling districts to exclude student progress as part of teacher evaluations. Dr. Lloyd’s letter was blunt and to the point:

 “While we did our very best to provide an online testing environment for our students that would not yield confounding results, the online testing experience for our students in 2014-15 represented an epic fail due to the online platform that was utilized by the testing company.  

As a result, we firmly believe that our students’ performances do not fairly represent their achievement or growth…Therefore, as the leader of the Olmsted Falls City School District, I cannot in good conscience require my building principals to use student test results to evaluate our teachers in any form or fashion.  

Moreover, we will not waste our teachers’ time by creating last minute district or building level student learning objectives in order to retro-fit a growth measure into a teacher evaluation computer programming system that we did not create nor do we want to use.”

Local School Board President "Disgusted", Slams ODE

We posted a letter to ODE yesterday by Summit County Superintendents challenging the recent PARCC test results, today we have another hard hitting letter to ODE from the President of the Board of Education for Firelands Local Schools. Here it is.

Dear State of Ohio School Board Members,

As a parent of three elementary school children and board president of a rural school district in Northern Ohio, I am disgusted with our districts recent report card ratings from the State of Ohio. Our district, previously labeled with characteristics of excellence and distinction, has been berated by the same State with D’s and F’s. 

So what has changed in the last 2-3 years? School districts have been forced to comply with Federal and State strong-arming and top-down governance with a complete loss of local control, while being mandated to enforce Common Core, PARCC standardized testing, the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, and Ohio Principal Evaluation System with minimal effective implementation practices. Well our community fought back and, due to the overwhelming grass-root resistance in the state, the PARCC test was abolished. Yet we are still being “graded” on the same test that was deemed ineffective by the State of Ohio. 

Meanwhile, the same State of Ohio is fleecing its taxpayers of its hard earned tax dollars to fund incompetent charter schools with no governance, transparency, or proof of actual value. Nor were these charters forced to enact the same mandates as the public schools. How can two completely different models of best educational practices be funded by the same foundation and both be deemed worthy? And here’s the kicker, these unjust practices were enforced by the same State Departments that have been embarrassed with lies, corruption, and resignations. Yet here we are 120 miles from Columbus defending the “grade” bestowed upon us from the same agency that has created every barricade and obstacle in our path.

It’s time that we stand up and tell the state to stop meddling with our children’s education. I know that we have both taken the vow to protect the children of our district and state and to create a positive and enriching environment for each child to excel. What has been created is toxic! Not only for the children, but the staff and administration too. The State deserves better and our children certainly deserve better. They are our future!

Let’s regain control of our state and local school boards. I beg you to give us the tools locally so that our district and teachers can have some flexibility to adapt educational opportunities to what fits in our community. One that helps each child meet their unique goal and sense of accomplishment and pride. Not a one-size fits all fear over a standardized test score!

Lastly, please don’t belittle me with Mr. Kasich’s “Our local school boards select the curriculum” speech. We all know that curriculum is chosen to meet the state mandates not each district’s unique needs, challenges, and goals.

Sincerely,

Ben Gibson

President of Firelands Local School Board

Superintendents Challenge Test Result Validity

The Summit County Superintendents Association have written to the Interim State Superintendent, challenging the results of recent PARCC tests. Here's there letter:

Dear Dr. Rivera:

We are dedicated to providing the best education possible for the students we serve. This is our purpose. As such, we welcome transparency and accountability.

 There is significant concern however among school districts regarding the recently released state report card. We believe the recent testing results do not reflect the quality of education being offered in our school districts. 

 We strongly challenge the validity of the recently published testing results.

  • This validity concern is exemplified by the fact that the overall value added grade distribution of the districts that took the test using paper and pencil vs. those districts that took the test online are profoundly different.

o   A significant number of school districts that took the test online had test scores that plummeted.

o   A significant number of school districts that took the test with paper and pencil had excellent test scores.

o   This makes no sense.  

  • This validity concern is also demonstrated by the fact that current testing penalizes school districts for promoting college and career readiness programs. It forces school districts to choose between looking good on a report card OR providing opportunities for students. This makes no sense.

o   This is exemplified by school districts that had accelerated middle school students take tests at the high school level, what was best for the students. In such circumstances, the testing falsely showed the middle schools as plummeting in performance.

  • The validity is finally called into question by the Governor’s Office itself, which declared due to test inconsistencies that students and school personnel may not be evaluated based upon the results. 

 We are further concerned about the inconsistency of the testing from year to year. The inconsistency causes significant negative issues and confusion for our personnel and our district’s citizens.

The state has asked us to invest in technology to support online testing. We are asking the state address inconsistencies in the existing testing system.

Again, we welcome transparency and accountability. We embrace our purpose, which is to provide the best education possible for the students we serve. We desire to be a part of a constructive solution and offer our support in creating that solution. 

 We look forward to a dialog so we may work together.

Members of the Summit County Superintendents’ Association

 

America’s K-12 Facilities Underfunding by $46 Billion Annually

The Center for Green Schools has issued a report that looks at K-12 facilities investment. They find that going forward our nation will under-invest in school buildings by $46 billion annually.

As usual with school funding issues, a large part of the problem stems from the funding systems, whereby local communities are asked to provide the bulk of funding, causing massive inequities in poor communities when compared with richer counterparts.

This will be a growing problem in Ohio, now that the Governor's successive budgets have placed a larger and larger burden on local communities to fund school operations, so that the state can instead offer tax cuts to wealthy citizens and businesses. This will undoubtedly leave communities with less room for capital investment in future years.

Here's the report:

10 Critical Questions for Implementing ESSA

Battelle For Kids has compiled a list of ten questions states need to answer when it comes to implementing ESSA. It's a smart list. Perhaps even smarter is what they had to say at the end of their list

As states lead and navigate change in the ESSA era, it’s important to remember the old adage, “Sometimes you need to go slow to go fast.” A thoughtful, strategic approach to implementation is critical to build understanding and support, and ensure that change sticks. 

We've seen, repeatedly in Ohio, a lack of willingness on the part of policy and rule makers to listen to stakeholders, especially parents and educators. ODE has already been told by stakeholder that is needs to slow down and get broader, deeper input before acting unilaterally.

Everyone outside of ODE is saying the same thing. Slow down. Get it right. Here's the list of 10 things that needs to be considered, according to Battelle

1. What standards will states adopt?
ESSA requires states to adopt “challenging academic content standards” in math, reading or language arts, and science that align with credit-bearing coursework in the state’s higher education system. The bill does not mandate any particular set of standards. Details about this section of the law are still being worked out through the regulatory process, but whether states choose to keep and evolve their existing standards or develop new ones, it’s critical that all stakeholders are involved in this process. 

2. What assessments will states give students?
ESSA maintains the requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act that states test students in reading and math annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school. In science, districts must test students at least once in grades 3 through 5, grades 6 through 9, and grades 10 through 12. However, the bill prohibits the federal government from specifying any other aspect of assessments. In fact, districts may let high schools use a nationally recognized test—such as the ACT or SAT—for accountability purposes. And ESSA creates an “innovative local assessment” pilot project, allowing up to seven states or consortia of states to try out new kinds of tests, such as performance assessments, with the goals of eventually taking them statewide. 

3. Will states make adjustments to their teacher and principal evaluation systems?
ESSA prohibits the U.S. Secretary of Education from requiring states to develop or implement a teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation system. Whether states choose to preserve or reform their current evaluation system, how will they ensure teachers and leaders are getting feedback that supports professional growth and student learning?

4. How will funding be distributed to impact students most in need?
While ESSA only authorizes and doesn’t appropriate any money, the bill does create more flexibility in how states and school districts can use federal funds—particularly Title I dollars—to help economically disadvantaged students. The new law also creates a pilot program that will let up to 50 districts combine federal, state, and local funding with the purpose of better directing that money to low-income students and others with specific needs, including English language learners. In addition, ESSA changes the Title II funding formula to direct more dollars to states that have large populations of students living in poverty. 

5. How will states design their accountability plans?
ESSA requires states to develop accountability plans that annually measure student performance on state assessments, include performance goals for subgroups of students and determine at least “one other indicator of school quality or student success,” such as student engagement, student access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school climate, and safety. Beyond that, the bill gives states discretion in setting academic goals, deciding what to hold districts and schools accountable for, and determining what weight to assign each indicator in the accountability system. As state education leaders work to develop their accountability plans, consider:  
  • How will the state involve key stakeholders—including superintendents, principals, teachers, parents, and policymakers—in developing the plan?
  • How does the plan align with the state’s larger educational-improvement goals?
  • How will the process be communicated?
  • What other measures might be included in the plan, and why?
  • How will the state help districts and schools improve? 
Accountability measures must be designed and thoughtfully implemented to illuminate a pathway to improvement, writes BFK's Jamie Meade. Read more.

6. What strategies will states and districts implement to more effectively recruit, develop, and retain teachers and leaders, particularly in high-needs schools?  
Through Title II, ESSA encourages districts and states to pursue a variety of strategies to improve educator effectiveness—particularly for low-income and minority students—including:  
  • Recruiting, hiring, and retaining effective educators;
  • Improving teacher and leader preparation programs;
  • Providing high-quality, personalized professional development; and
  • Supporting alternative certification programs for teachers, principals, or other school leaders.
The new law also creates the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program—formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)—which awards grants to help districts and states strengthen their talent management systems. 

BFK’s Paul Cynkar shares five steps to help school leaders not only address challenges with recruiting and retaining educators, but also strengthen organizational health to ensure staff are engaged and supported throughout their career. Read more.

7. What strategies are states going to use to support improvement in their lowest-performing schools? 

ESSA requires states to take action to improve their lowest-performing five percent of schools, as well as high schools with a graduation rate below 67 percent or where one or more subgroups of students is underperforming. However, in a departure from the Obama Administration’s School Improvement Grant program, the bill gives state education leaders flexibility to choose what “evidence-based” strategies to use in these schools. ESSA directs states to use seven percent of Title I funds for school improvement activities. 

Explore five promising practices mined from Battelle for Kids' work with some of the highest-performing districts and schools across Ohio. Read more

8. How might the increased flexibility under the ESSA support innovation at the state and local level?
 
The reduced federal role in K-12 education under ESSA is being touted by some as an opportunity for states and districts to explore innovative ideas for moving education forward. Where do those opportunities exist, and how might they be implemented? While the Investing in Innovation (i3) program does not appear in ESSA, some observers are describing the new Education Innovation and Research grant program as the next generation of i3. It would award grants to school districts, state departments of education, and others to scale “entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations” to improve student achievement. Of note, the bill requires the U.S. Secretary of Education to award no less than 25 percent of those funds in each fiscal year to programs that impact rural school districts or a consortium of rural districts. 

9. How will states support districts in providing “well-rounded educational experiences” for all students?
ESSA creates a new Student Support and Academic Enrichment block grant to help states, school districts, and communities provide all students with access to well-rounded educational opportunities, including high-quality STEM courses, music and the arts, foreign languages, programs that support volunteerism and community involvement, and more. 

10. How will states build awareness, engagement, and support among all stakeholders to successfully implement new policies and programs under ESSA?
Senator Lamar Alexander, chairman of the U.S. Senate Education Committee, said recently about ESSA, “A law that is not properly implemented is not worth the paper it’s printed on.” All the conversation about getting the policy right under ESSA will be for naught if state and district education leaders aren’t prepared to implement the new law. States need to engage multiple stakeholders to develop a comprehensive implementation plan that helps translate ESSA policy into meaningful practice in schools. Read Battelle for Kids’ lessons learned about leading and navigating change in schools.